“Ok, We Can Agree to a Maximum Temperature of 68 Degrees In Our Homes and Apartments…”
Imagining the Negotiation
By blackhedd Posted in Economy | Obama | reducing net energy usage — Comments (57) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
By now you’ve all heard the widely-quoted line that Obama gave to 75,000 of his closest friends in Portland yesterday. Roughly, “You can’t drive your SUVs, eat what you want, and heat your homes to 72 degrees and expect other countries to just say OK. That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.”
Think every word of that through very carefully. If it’s not going to happen that we’re going to be heating our homes and apartments to the temperature we choose, then why not?
Obama isn’t even President, but he’s already negotiating with other countries on our behalf.
Perhaps we shouldn’t be as concerned that the Messiah has signaled his intention to negotiate with people who have sworn to destroy our country and Israel. What he just told us is that he intends to negotiate how we drive, eat, and heat our homes with other countries. Something tells me that it’s going to be a really big winner with those bitter voters in swing states, to tell them that they’ll have to dial their thermostats down, because it’s not fair to other countries if we set them as we see fit.
One wonders what Obama hopes to get in return. To China, perhaps: “We agree to a maximum temperature of 68 degrees in our homes. You have to agree to stop buying so many automobiles from General Motors.” China’s response: “Ok, as long as we’re allowed to nationalize the factories GM is already running in our country.” Obama: “Done. Next point…”
If nothing else, he’s now made completely clear his view that the answer to the global energy problem is for Americans to net-reduce our usage of energy, even before more efficient technologies become available. To Obama, this is leadership. He may suppose that everyone else will say “if you do that, we’ll do it too.” Their actual response is more likely to be: ”Thanks for the cheaper energy, suckers.
-Francis Cianfrocca
« Rethinking the Goals of a National Mortgage Bailout — Comments (45) | Sex sells, but it doesn't hurt that they're right, too — Comments (1) »
“Ok, We Can Agree to a Maximum Temperature of 68 Degrees In Our Homes and Apartments…” 57 Comments (0 topical, 57 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
"Whatever happened to personal freedom and responsibility?"
February 21, 1848. The 1st printing of The Communist Manifesto.
Obama is a dyed in the wool Marxist with only a thinly veiled cover hiding this fact. Perhaps our only real luck is that this inept politician in his rush to power has failed to create more thorough mask in which to hide his true colors.
_____________________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle
"Since when does another country have the right to tell me what I can drive, eat, and the temperature of my home?"
We did join the WTO. Maybe we better read the fine print.....
I think they were trying to remotely control citizens' thermostats in CA a few months ago. As socialist as those nuts are out there (I lived there so I can say that) when word leaked out there was an uprising and the idea died quickly...so far. I just can't wait for most Dems to realize what an idiotic POS they have bought for a nominee.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
Even for those who don't buy the global warming science, it's hard to argue against reducing pollution. Forget global warming, pollution causes enough health problems to be a concern. I think if our candidates keep giving knee-jerk reactions against anything ecological – we are going to keep losing elections. We need to argue for the right balance between economy and ecology. We need to reduce energy usage AND increase efficiency technology. (Just like we need to reduce taxes AND reduce spending.) One won't be enough. We need to drive home that it is not an either/or issue.
There is room for us to lead here – I hate that the left portrays us as being "against the environment" just because we don't want to smother all business in America.
I can afford the expensive gas, I just don't know if my kids want me spending all the planet's resources before they grow up. We're conservative....let's conserve SOMETHING.
hurt the most is those young men and women with children in their 20's you know those "poor" folk...I know for a fact when my husband and I were young "just" making it we could never have afforded this large an increase in gas....as it was we ate a lot of macaroni and cheese and peanut butter sandwiches....a lot of us will be fine...but the Dem's are killing the poor with their policy of not drilling OUR own oil.
But that is their plan because it keeps the poor on the dole and expecting the government to pay their way and in such those who "expect" something from the government vote D.
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
I'm fine with off-shore rigs up and down our coasts – scenery is no good if nobody can afford to drive to it. Alaska...sure, let's do it. I just don't think that will be enough to keep us from begging in the Middle-East. (How humiliating to see the leader of the free world on bended knee in Riyadh.) At some point, we're going to have to reduce our usage. Let's not give this issue away. Tax cuts without spending cuts didn't really work, increased oil production without reductions in usage won't be enough either.
you are accepting their definition for an pro-ecological position. Focusing on efficiency and innovation is the best way to improve the environment.
The government setting limits on consumption is absolutely wrong headed. This is what Obama is implying and we need to say unequivocally that it is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Let's not start with liberal/socialistic positions and say we need have a more conservative leaning version.
If anything we need to sell/promote efficiency and innovation more aggressively and intelligently.
The "Oh, I don't believe in AGW either, but I'm against pollution!/" meme. You know the one with the veiled insult that people who don't want to follow the AGW prescriptions are polluting pigs.
It's an appeal to our own values, but based on false information and false assumptions.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
What you're saying is reasonable, and practically everyone I know is sensitive enough about the resource-conservation and climate-change issues to want to do something about it.
And Obama is reading that mood correctly. But he overreaches in two ways. First, he assumes that sympathy for resource conservation and more efficient energy use will translate into a willingness to accept involuntary controls on energy use.
If you don't believe that, then ask the first liberal Democrat you see this morning if she's willing to turn down her thermostat if Obama tells her to.
Second, and much more insidiously, Obama has obviously internalized the idea that we should give other countries a veto over our behavior. This reminds me of John Kerry's line that we can't go to war without first going to our allies and asking their permission.
The people correctly interpreted this as an abdication of America's prerogative to act freely on the global stage.
This is a very, very big deal, and it represents a reversal of more than 100 years of foreign policy. We really need to make sure everyone understands that this is what's at stake in this election.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
A government program to mandate that we make are older homes more energy efficient or be taxed at a higher rate?
I don't know if the issue is dead yet, but the City of Austin is trying to make new energy efficiency standards mandatory for older homes before they can be sold. We are not talking caulking the windows. We are talking replacing windows, replacing hvac systems, adding insulation, etc - thousands of dollars.
I haven't heard much about it lately so it might be a dead issue. But the fact that it was proposed just amazes me.
And I was this close to thinking he wasn't really a commie.
OK, so I wasn't close to thinking that, and have always intended to vote for the remaining sane candidate, John McCain.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
If you don't vote for McCain, that is one less vote this Marxist prima donna has to coax out of the proletariat fools. Is it really worth it? I can see sitting out if Hillary is the candidate; at least you know what she and her morally bankrupt husband are about. But the Marxism inherent in the teachings of his radical church he attends is slipping out, and who knows how much more will be sprung upon us after the election. In a free society, the nation is his oyster for suppression and control in order to secure a permanent majority.
With a Democratically controlled Congress unwilling to stop him, mind you.
measure will be the real tough sell.
I will not allow a second holocaust - John McCain
That's not a snark.
The population control and global warming alarmists are in lockstep. And Obama embraces them all in his warm, caramely goodness.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
Didn't this country reject a second Carter term once already?
people are now the reason and slaughter all the cattle because of their "gas" ahhh the heck with it lets just have a worldwide lottery with a drawing for about 4 billion "winners" and if your number comes up you get to walk into the gas chamber because really just living seems to be an issue for the greenies.
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
and anyone else who peddles fine wool washables.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
When Carter made his ridiculous statement we were facing a coming ice age. With global warming no sweaters will be needed.
The country did reject Carter's austerity--28 years ago. Many of Obama's youthful supporters are too young to remember that era. Anyone under the age of 35 today doesn't remember the Carter years. It's a generational change.
And, sadly, I'm sure that their left-wing teachers and professors in school and college haven't taught them that liberalism was intellectually bankrupt by the late 1970s, which is why Reagan won. The widespread use of Marxist textbooks like Zinn's suggests that they either ignore those times altogether, or push some alternative left-wing revisionist interpretation that regards the 1980 election as some kind of aberration or fraud.
It looks like a whole new generation of Americans are going to have to find out the hard way what life under a left-wing government is like.
we'd stand a good chance of coming through this relatively unscathed.
The problem is a good many people in the over 35 crowd seem to have forgotten as well. My dad use to drive a delivery truck for a living, and he's thinking about voting for Obama because of Iraq. He ought to remember the gas lines and the odd/even/occasional free for all schemes they cooked up. Tended to encourage hording instead of as needed distribution as I recall. Mom use to top off on the appropriate day even if she didn't need it that week, just to make sure she didn't run short if the wrong number was on the day she needed gas. It wasn't just the deregulation that ended the gas shortage. It was that combined with encouragement of exploration. Oh, and a muscular military that at least went after Uncle Mu's tent after he blew up yet another airliner. Combination of all three caused some attitude adjustments and more plentiful crude.
Sweaters are nice, but what about when it's 120 here in the Desert Southwest. Sure, I set my temp to 78, the darn A/C practically never shuts off on those days. And if you transition in from out, man, that 42 degree temperature change is massive.
I should just accept 84 inside now I guess.
_____________________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle
I'm sure he'll tell you 68 just like every other "good person". But I'd like to see that verified. Too bad he didn't make that speech in December when it would be verified.
We set our thermostat to 74 because any lower than that and my wife starts to say it's cold in the house. I DO want the US to be looked at as the leader. I want it to be looked at as the country that others WANT to live in or at least emulate. Having 300 million people sitting in their homes in the dark and shivering isn't the way to project leadership!
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Having 300 million people sitting in their homes in the dark and shivering isn't the way to project leadership!
And yet, to the modern Left, that is probably seen as just an added bonus. After all, who are we to tell the rest of the world what to think? Shouldn't we be leaving that up to those respectful voices in the developing world like Chavez, Mugabe, or Ahmadinejad?
Okay... not even I can keep the sarcasm going for that long.
The point is, it's the same old, same old from the elite progressives... they believe the citizenry to be too stupid to act in its best interests, therefore they should be the ones making the decisions. I'm still not fond of McCain and his own level of devotion to the government, but even the outside chance of military conscription beats Obama's creeping brand of proto-fascism.
"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk
The point is, it's the same old, same old from the elite progressives... they believe the citizenry to be too stupid to act in its best interests, therefore they should be the ones making the decisions.
It's more than that.
It's a belief that America has sucked the wealth out of the rest of the world, impoverishing the rest of the world so that we could enjoy a luxurious lifestyle here at home. And so they're secretly (or even not so secretly) pleased to see America taken down a few pegs, accepting a lower standard of living for a change.
In the past, I've confronted such progressives with the following question: Do you think the world would have been better off today, if the signers of the Declaration of Independence had lost the Revolutionary War and been hanged by the British?
They usually have no answer. I don't know if that means they don't know, or they're afraid to say what they believe.
Take these two scenarios...
"Rising energy prices have forced most consumers to purchase smaller, more fuel efficient cars and to drop the thermostat back to 68."
"New Federal standards set by the United States mandate smaller more fuel efficient cars and to limit the maximum setting for heating on thermostats in homes."
For some reason Democrats think the first scenario is evil, but the second one is OK.
...vote, speak out against the government, travel from province to province without notice or approval, or engage in several other activities that help make America what it is.
Liberalism at its best: success is punished, and in the name of "leadership," we'll bring the best (in this case, America) down to the level of the rest of the pack, rather than continuing to work for our own good, which benefits everybody else in the process.
The internet is making China and Iran freer places; should we have spiked free use of the series of tubes because not everybody once had it, and not every regime looked favorably on it? How about countless other innovations and developments that came about as a result of our free society, and made other peoples better off? Immunizations for example -- not everybody has them, and fewer had them before scientists driven by our free market developed some major breakthrough vaccinations. Should we have halted their pursuit because not everybody had that capability?
This line is so amazingly pathetic I don't know how anybody gets away with spewing it. Hey Senator -- I bet a lot of folks wanted to go to Harvard, or work at Sidley Austin, or be Senators. Not everybody could do that; so why are you taking advantage of privilege and doing what not everybody is capable of? Is that really *leadership*?
No, not Mr. Rogers - although by God he'd be an improvement over this guy.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Here's how you know he truly is a Maxist.. He is not even aware that this statement is offensive. The man is too smart to let something this socialist slip out of his mouth by accident. God knows he is aware that cameras are on him constantly. The only conclusion left is that he is so brainwashed by socialism that he doesn't see it for what it is.
The rallies are centered aroound stages bedecked with mock gas pumps with prices calibrated at $10 per gallon. The attendees park their cars in formation in radiating lines from the stage, then bands start performing 70's hits like "Stayin' Alive", "I Will Survive" and the entire repertoire from Chicago. Jimmy Carter impersonators (yes, in sweaters!) then give the malaise speech while dodging "killer rabbits"- hot babes in bunny suits- who seek to inflame the lust in their hearts.
RNC- are you listening?
I wonder what it will take for the underlying idiocy of this man's statements to cut through to the minds of voters? We haven't even begun to see what the media and the DNC will do to those who attack the Chosen One once the general campaign gets ramped up. Will we be able to cut through the "HopeAndChange!!!" and "If you vote McCain you are a RACIST!" noise to get enough people to see that this guy is a pure, homegrown Marxist?
What it will take for voters to "get it," is a deep understanding of history, a subject that is just not taught well in most schools.
The GOP candidate has to be able to explain it in simple but eloquent terms.
Unfortunately, McCain is not a particularly eloquent man, I've noticed. And the rest of the GOP seems really tongue-tied.
No one seems capable of explaining the difference between the Reagan and Obama/Carter visions in the most stark terms: Who shall control the resources of a nation's economy? Which economic decisions are best made by the private sector? What goes wrong when the government controls too much?
A measure of the GOP's collapse is that they have no spokespersons who can explain the Fiscal Conservative viewpoint cogently. It's almost as if they have forgotten why they are conservatives.
PBS had a terrific miniseries called "Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy," in which they presented the conflict between the statists and the libertarians as the driving force between the entire economic history of the last 100 years. They went over all of it, from the Depression and New Deal to Hayek to the Carter stagflation and Reaganomics. Highly recommended.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/
Anyone who has watched "Commanding Heights" will have some perspective on what Obama is saying. It's too bad history isn't taught that way in school.
Obama gives us a clear picture of the kind of leftist command and control lifestyle and economy he will give us: government decides what car you can drive, where you can live, how hot or cold your home can be, etc etc.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Prepare to bare thy bosom to the knife - "The Merchant of Venice"
This is exactly the same lecturing about personal sacrifice that President Carter gave us in the 1970s: He would go on nationwide TV dressed in a cardigan sweater, to tell Americans to turn down their thermostats in winter, etc. Along with rhetoric about living in an "age of limits."
So we did. Some folks in the Northeast were shivering in homes with the thermostat set to 62 degrees in winter. And in the summer, I remember sweltering in my office at work where the thermostat was set to 83 degrees.
The Weekly Standard had an article on this mindset:
From the time of John Kennedy's assassination in 1963 to Jimmy Carter's election in 1976, the Democratic party was gradually taken over by a bizarre doctrine that might be called Punitive Liberalism. According to this doctrine, America had been responsible for numerous crimes and misdeeds through its history for which it deserved punishment and chastisement....By our greed, we had despoiled the environment and were consuming a disproportionate share of the world's wealth and resources.
And it followed from Punitive Liberalism that America had to atone for her past sins through a kind of self-flagellation: If we had "despoiled the environment," then it was time to stop economic growth and accept genuine self-sacrifice at the personal level.
Jimmy Carter, with his sanctimonious lecturing about "limits," "sacrifice," and "malaise," was the perfect poster child for this.
But now, Barack Obama is evidently going down that same route. And he's propelled by the same collection of guilt-ridden affluent liberals who agree that America has had it too good already. Michelle Obama has been even more explicit in some of her speeches.
I just don't want to have to pay for their healthcare.
This is what is wrong with all the left's prescriptions. Once you take the financial incentives out, there is nothing to incentivize beneficial behavior. If you knew having a heart attack was going to cost you alot of money, you might take better care of yourself. Once you get the Democrat party "free" healthcare, though, you are free to go off and live whatever unhealthy lifestyle you want. Funny how so many of those people who can't afford insurance can shell out a couple of hundy a month for sticks.
Take unwed pregnancy. I live in one of those rural, gun toting, bible clinging parts of America. There IS alot of poverty here. A fair amount of ignorance, too. When I drop my daughter off for high school, I do see a number of pregnant girls attending school. I always wonder, who is paying for them? I am guessing that, if they don't have insurance or are underinsured, the state probably has to pick up the tab. What does it cost to have a baby these days? Got to be at least $50K-$100K. I just wonder if the girls might have thought a little longer about having unprotected sex if there was a financial cost to their decision, to say nothing of the social consequence.
I, for one, turn my own thermostat down and throw on a sweater. I do it because it saves me money, not because I care what the people in Iran think. What are they setting their AC temperature at, BTW? In any case, we need to let the market work more, not less. Unfortunately, I think we are headed in the wrong direction.
Imagine what he doesn't talk about but is in the back of his head ?
You know a healthy diet is going to be mandated. I mean everyone who doesn't shop at wholefoods is just being poisoned by their non organic diet. Plus fat people cause global warming now.
Excessive television use contributes to Global warming ? Well we can meter and regulate that. Computers contributing ? Turn them off by remote control.
California rather than build new power plants is already trying to turn off peoples stuff by remote control.
It just doesn't get uglier than this.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I'm happy setting my thermostat at 60 in the winter and wearing a flannel shirt or something, but it's not because I have to worry about pollution. My energy supplier is already plenty compelled to reduce pollution and improve efficiency. I do my part because I personally need those energy savings and if it's any relief for the trucks that bring my food, that's good, too. And maybe I'm helping some other guy keep his wife's mood something like stable, as noted upthread.
Besides, if I have a distaste for the lifestyles of such communities as Lake Oconee, Georgia, Hilton Head, South Carolina or the Hamptons, that doesn't mean I'm against those people enjoying the fruits of their labors, does it?
Francis, you and I certainly agree that state socialism is a terrible form of governance. But many people commenting on this forum are apparently stuck in the illusion that capitalism and communism are our only options. That's called a false dichotomy.
My main response to your criticism of Obama, is that your comments reveal a breathtaking lack of knowledge about ecology and limits. If Americans persist in resisting a reduction in their gluttonous consumption levels, then nature will eventually force it anyway, whether you or anyone else likes it or not.
Playtime is over for the modern industrial world. You can kick and scream all you like, but when there's not enough oil, natural gas, topsoil, fresh water (etc. etc.), your whining won't matter one bit.
Our basic choice is to either choose to scale back in the manner we democratically choose, or we can blithely pretend that America's days of heedless affluence will continue ... until we slam into a metaphorical brick wall. The main difference between you and Obama is that he understands that situation, but you don't.
Read about carrying capacity. Read about the world supplies of material resources. You need to educate yourself.
And no, I will not be voting for any Democrats this fall. All real solutions to the coming crises are either local or regional. Most political blogs will be totally irrelevant.
And that was back when the world had a population of 2 billion.
Looks like that crystal ball is a little cracked.
Then again seeing as you don't even understand your own position.
"All real solutions to the coming crises are either local or regional."
Just how do you propose a regional solution to CO2 concentration ?
Or a regional solution to a global famine ?
Or a regional solution to the seas dieing ?
I think you need to educate yourself.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
"Then again seeing as you don't even understand your own position."
It's certainly easier (and lazier) to argue against a straw man than what has been actually written. Right, Joliphant?
For example, your questions clearly imply that it's ridiculous to think that any region could solve the world's problems. And of course, I would agree, because that's not what I wrote. Nor did I imply it. A region solves a region's problems. That would include regional hunger and regional climate change. Are some causes out of our control? Yes, but that doesn't mean we turn back to the myths of statism – offered by both Democrats and Republicans.
Did you know that Thomas Paine was a secessionist? I would guess you had no clue.
First the problems you speak of in the context you speak of them aren't regional in nature.
"Regional Problems" rarely stay that way. Any look at the history of Asia in the early part of the century, Africa in the modern period or Europe during world wars.
But even allowing that a Region could solve its problems in vacuo, unless you do away with global markets its not going to matter. Is that your vision ? Isolated regions cut off from the rest of the world.
To be fair I don't believe in the global problems you mention. This argument for me is an exercise in taking apart a logically inconsistent position you have presented.
Once again let me leave you with a couple of signposts on this road.
Malthus.
Paul Ehrlich the population bomb
The club rome report
Global warming (1905)
Global Cooling (1920s)
Global Warming and the dustbowl (1930s)
Global Cooling (early 1970s)
Global Warming
First Oil Crisis (Late 1800s)
Second Oil Crisis (post world war 1)
Third Oil Crisis (Post WWII)
Fourth Oil Crisis (1970s)
Current Oil Crisis (now)
Predictions of Global Famine (Too many to enumerate)
What the worry warts no longer care about pandemics, giant meteors or nuclear warfare ?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Oh great ... another fallacy-loving denialist.
Joliphant, you seem to be one of the millions of clueless Americans whose cornucopian worldview is about to be flattened by reality. Trying to tell you about limits is somewhat like talking to an Inuit about alligators.
Sorry, but command economies don't work. The people who set the limits tend to become dictators or screw up so badly that tens of millions of people starve.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Just for the record? They let Inuit have televisions and books now, so it's actually fairly easy for them to get the concept of alligators. But it's always a pleasure to meet someone with such an unconscious sense of racial/cultural superiority. However misplaced.
Don't tell me, let me guess: Obama supporter, right?
Blam.
Moe Lane
PS: And that, gentlemen, is how I talk to a two-hour troll.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
He could have used a conversation with Mike about limits.
I always wonder how people can speak of limits when we haven't begun to tap the resources we have easy access to, let alone those that are potentially available.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The cornucopian will easily trip up anyone claiming to be an ecological truthteller and turn him or her into a ecological liar.
I guess I am a cornucopian. It has a nice pleasant ring to it.
As to who is clueless let me tell you a little story.
A few years back someone came up with a bamboo frame bicycle. Many green people I know were thrilled idea as it was sustainable.
My response was Aluminum is 5% of the earths crust and we recycle it. How much more sustainable did you want ?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Starts with the standard 'agree with something they've said' line, but doesn't dilly-dally trying to make himself look like one of us before moving on to the criticism stage. Must have listed some choice phrases too:
false dichotomy
ecological limits
gluttony
you can't fool mother nature (or some facsimilie thereof)
carrying capacity
follow up with the modern interpretation of "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" (replacing God with good aethistic forces that can't be beaten instead of that racist, sexist tripe) that threatens ever lasting damnation for all of us who don't repent of our ecological sins.
Too bad he gives the gave away in the last line. If political blogs will be irrelevant to all of this and the forces behind it are unstoppable, why bother posting?
Why, yes, I am a conservative who believes there really is very little new under the sun. Including the doomsday scenario Barak, and sadly McCain too, seems to have bought into.
preemptive surrender!
Obama = Malaise Reloaded.
___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!
Since when does another country have the right to tell me what I can drive, eat, and the temperature of my home?
Does he even realize what he is saying? In the name of leadership? Please. Whatever happened to personal freedom and responsibility?
If I want to drive an SUV, I have to accept the gas bill.
If I want to stuff my face with a blooming onion at the Outback Steakhouse, I have to accept the bill, the heartburn and residual cardiac damage. Or, I have to go run like h*ll at the gym the next day.
And lastly, I like to be warm. My hubby works to insure that I am not cold in the winter. Cold makes me grouchy. Very grouchy. And that isn't pretty.
Bottom line, if I can't afford these things, I adjust my habits.
Gaw, the Marxist mask slips a little lower with each passing day.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...